Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, December 28th, 2021 - 84 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Young Maori woman breaks through prime-time barrier…
Having a govt with a foreign minister who fronts internationally with a moko no doubt helped management to make this move promoting her.
Having a govt with a foreign minister who fronts internationally with a moko no doubt helped management to make this move promoting her.
I don’t think that would be a relevant factor in their decision. They poached her off TV1, where she’d been a regular midday news presenter since November 2019.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/117787888/oriini-kaipara-one-of-the-first-with-moko-kauae-to-read-major-news-bulletin
It’s quite noticeable now how all the major Kiwiland free to air tv channels are showing increasingly bicultural & multicultural ads as well. There are several regular ads that feature mixed Pākehā & Māori or Pākehā & Pasifika couples.
I saw an online discussion earlier in the year about bicultural & multicultural ads. It was a chance for racists, the threatened majority and the insular to flaunt their wares.
Ironic that what they see as sign of decline instead gave them the opportunity to show how terribly far we have to travel.
It cuts both ways. Hone Harawira has infamously said he “wouldn’t feel comfortable” if one of his children came home with a Pākehā partner.
There are some other Māori who exhibit racist attitudes to Pākehā too, & frequently speak of Pākehā natives of several generations in this country as though THEY are guilty of the bad, even atrocious, behaviour of the early settler governments, colonial troops & militias.
But these racist haters on both sides are still very much the minority, I believe. There are mixed Māori/Pākehā couples in my extended family/whanau, like there are in many Pākehā & Māori families. It’s just never been an issue in ours. They’re all loved nephews, nieces, cuzzies – just whanau to us. (Although few of them identify as Māori, they mostly consider themselves Kiwis first, with Māori & Pākehā whakapapa.)
Some of our extended family got together over Xmas at my place. One of them mentioned that they’d seen the proposed Kiwiland history syllabus for schools. They thought it was too heavily weighted towards colonial history & the suppression of Māori, with no information on the pre-Treaty intertribal wars which would have featured in some iwi decisions to sign up to Te Tiriti.
Their concern was that it might generate unnecessary friction between Pākehā & Māori students if Pākehā students come to feel picked on for the “sins of their forefathers” when they feel & exhibit no such attitudes themselves. So I’ll be interested to see how things go with the NZ history syllabus.
Hone saying "he wouldn't be comfortable…" is not racist.
He'll readily admit to prejudice (quite rightly) but never to racism (quite rightly).
Wonderful quote….I mean who ever heard of any European parents who shared the very same sentiments regarding their own …offspring.
what would be some reasons for a Pākehā father to not want his daughter to date a Māori man?
prejudice.
what do you mean?
I don't have the…data.
so you think there's something wrong with a parent not wanting their child to date a person of another ethnicity but you don't know why.
Ask Freud.
To go back a little, what would be some reasons for anyone to not want to see brown-faced people in NZ tv advertising?
Racism.
@ Robert
Hone saying “he wouldn’t be comfortable…” is not racist. He’ll readily admit to prejudice (quite rightly) but never to racism (quite rightly).
racist
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
‘we are investigating complaints about racist abuse’
noun
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
‘he has been targeted by vicious racists online’
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, anti-Semite, (racially) discriminatory, prejudiced, bigoted, biased, intolerant, illiberal, anti-Semitic
"typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Try living and working in any country where you are a minority.
Member of a minority… race?
My point is that you're viewing 'racism' through just one local lens that's familiar to you.
Globally it's a much more complex thing, and doesn’t conform to the tired stereotypes being used here.
“Typically” being the operative word, but it also means not always. Racial predjudice is racism. It’s not determined by whether the object of the racism is a member of a minority, or marginalised, or not.
The argument that because some Pākehā are racist against Māori this justifies some Māori being racist against Pākehā is a pathetic attempt to minimise or “whitewash / brownwash” racism as acceptable in the case of a member of a minority but not for a member of a majority.
It’s bullshit. Racism is racism & needs to be called out & condemned wherever it’s encountered. Otherwise it just becomes an endless circle of justifications: “If it’s ok for him/her/them to be racist, I/we can be too!”
No. Typically means typically, so the definition of racism and prejudice is not the same. The exception does not extinguish the difference.
Hone admits to prejudice (shouldn't we all?) but denies racism.
"minority or marginalised" – are you somehow hoping to pitch us pakeha as such?
Hone's right.
Hone’s racist. Some days. Other days he’s not.
Typically means “typically”, because in the majority of cases members of majorities are racially prejudiced against minorities, or the marginalised, like the Dalit, in India, as one example, but certainly doesn’t mean “always”.
Whites in South Africa were prejudiced against the majority – blacks & coloureds.
I can only assume you’re being obtuse or wilfully obdurate in a failed attempt to justify what some folk call reverse racism in this country.
But that’s bullshit, Guyton, imo.
Racism is the same thing as racial prejudice & it’s unacceptable to all fair-minded folk. No matter who is demonstrating it & whatever group it’s directed at.
People of colour in SA are the marginalised group. Your definition included minority and marginalised.
If we don't differentiate between people being marginalised as a class because of race and those who are receiving personal bigotry, then we can't understand what racism is, how it manifests, and what to do about it.
THere are obvious differences between a Pāhekā man not wanting his daughter to date any Māori man because he believes that Māori generally are [insert racial prejudice], and a Māori man not wanting his daughter to date any Pākehā man because he wants to redress issues of colonisation (eg he believes that his grandkids will be better raised in te Ao Māori with a Māori dad, that te reo is more likely to survive, that his daughter is less likely to be exposed to racism if she is marries a Māori man etc).
Note I am not talking good/bad here, I am pointing out that there are important differences.
@ weka
Note I am not talking good/bad here, I am pointing out that there are important differences.
So, presumably you’d agree that a Pākehā man not wanting his daughter to have a Māori partner because he believes that his grandkids will be better raised in the Pākehā world with a Pākehā dad, that English is more likely to be of use to them in NZ and overseas than Te reo is, & that his daughter is less likely to be exposed to racism if she marries a man of European ancestry?
In this day in this country there’s no reason why having a Pākehā partner means you can’t move in both Māori & Pākehā circles & in fact many mixed race couples do, with the Pākehā partner learning Māori & being welcome on nga marae as whanau.
If we don’t differentiate between people being marginalised as a class because of race and those who are receiving personal bigotry, then we can’t understand what racism is, how it manifests, and what to do about it.
Yeah we can. It’s not complicated. Don’t abuse, insult, discriminate against or marginalise people because of their race or ethnic extraction.
No. My point was the two situations are not symmetric, they're actually quite different.
The reason why a Māori man might want his grandkids raised in te Ao Māori, is because that is at risk. Kids get raised in te Ao Pākehā by default, because it's the dominant culture. This is the point of analysis of racism beyond personal prejudice.
The only reason I can see for not wanting one's grandkid raised bilingually (te reo Māori and English) would be racism. Please explain any other reason you can see. There's no suggestion that they only learn TRM. And again, this is why the situations aren't symmetrical. English is the default, everyone learns it. It takes effort to learn TRM and there are many barriers to doing so.
Ae, but the chances of the Pākehā partner being versed in te Ao Māori, or even accepting of it, are much less likely. I'm not making a case for not marrying Pākehā, I'm pointing out the situations are two sides of the same coin.
Do you believe that there is a thing such as institutional racism? Or structural racism? Unconscious racism?
@ weka
The only reason I can see for not wanting one’s grandkid raised bilingually (te reo Māori and English) would be racism. Please explain any other reason you can see.
Personally I think our kids should be learning Te Reo English as the lingua franca & a widely spoken international language AND Te Reo Māori as the native language of Kiwiland. Both languages have completely different roots & grammar/syntax. Good for both brain development & for understanding the cultures they come from.
But I accept that some Pākehā can’t see the point in learning Te Reo Māori as they’re not Māori, & they have the same attitude regarding their kids learning it too. I do think some of them are probably racist, although they may not see it themselves, and it really depends on what their attitude is towards Māori people generally.
Do you believe that there is a thing such as institutional racism? Yes. It’s often unconscious in institutions that see themselves as offering equal opportunity or services to all Kiwis, but which don’t cater for non-Pākehā cultural differences..
Or structural racism? Yes. We saw this in the vaccine rollout.
Unconscious racism? Yes. Some people are unaware their attitudes or statements are racist. Point it out & some people will change. Others won’t – although now they should be aware they’re being racist if it’s been explained clearly.
Prejudice is not confined to….racism.
.
Gezza
Yeah, it's yet another attempt by the Woke Cult to dramatically transform definitions & then vigorously police them.
These radical re-definitions are grounded in Critical Race Theory dogma, particularly its crude, deeply distorted Postmodern-derived view of power dynamics. Basically, a racial re-theorising of Foucault's arguments around Knowledge & Power.
Practical Upshot: anyone deemed by horrendously self-indulgent Upper-Middle Wokedom to be a member of a ‘Marginalised’ ID group is essentially given carte blanche … tough luck for their victims if they’re violent anti-socials ruthlessly exercising power, control & domination.
But, of course, that couldn’t possibly happen if they’re not white … I mean …
As I’ve said before, the Woke Cult is an Upper-Middle Vanity Project that consolidates power & privilege for itself while viciously scapegoating a whole swathe of low-to-low-middle income it deems ‘outgroups’. The Paternalistic Romanticisation & Infantilisation of PoC is weapon they deploy.
madness… and grim reality
https://twitter.com/fundypost/status/1475769664768655360?s=21
"Yeah we can. It’s not complicated. Don’t abuse, insult, discriminate against or marginalise people because of their race or ethnic extraction."
It is the definition of racism I understand (but as Swordfish says, the language has been redefined for spurious political purposes)….as you say its simple…folk are folk.
Absurd positions do not serve anyone well.
Do you think people can be unconsciously racist?
I'm fairly confident some could be…whats your point?
Racism is racism, no matter what colour of skin. To make this a valid argument is no different than any statement of such matter. But I am honestly not surprised. Many comments I heard over the last 30 years are in that vain and it is pakeha riding a trend of woke culture completely misreading whats happening at the gras roots. Wait until the economic crisis thats in the making pulls the rug…
Because a wahine Māori would never merit promotion on her skills alone. Eh, Dennis. /
Labour has been making incremental progress, dropping the number of casual public servants by 1% per year over the past four years.
So Labour likes National's casualisation policy. Nat spokesperson reckons the policy is too expensive.
Don't worry, the government spent instead 1 Billion dollars on consultants and contractors. Maybe there is a money tree after all…..called the tax payer.
So you don't think experts should be used on our behalf? Who then should be consulted? Oh and who could we get for free?
How come one has to turn to the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/27/turn-the-planes-around-maori-leader-says-new-zealand-should-block-australian-deportations) to read something that should be all over the NZ Media. Matthew Tukaki, Chair of National Māori Authority posits an elegant solution to the arrogant dumping of 501's in NZ . He says the Government should adopt the Howard approach used when he turned back the Tampa, by doing the same to aircraft bringing the 501's here. That sure beats the present approach of – 'Oh well, there's nothing we can do." Irrespective of all else, the 501's learned their trade in Australia so it is appropriate they ply their trade there – not here!
Im not sure we can refuse access to NZ citizens deported from abroad no matter the justification…..signatory to international agreements.
The problems with some 501s being behind the increasing use of guns & violence by NZ gangs IS being reported in NZ media as well:
.https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-12-2021/#comment-1846739
See especially The Herald coverage of Matthew Tukaki’s outburst.
NZ legally can’t refuse to allow NZ citizens to be deported here. Tukaki most probably already knows that. He’s a real grandstander, that dude. Seems to just like being in the news.
About that increasing use of guns & violence by NZ gangs…
https://twitter.com/VinLew/status/1474969666002960386
https://twitter.com/elliotjweir/status/1475420613099491328
'The problems with some 501s being behind the increasing use of guns & violence by NZ gangs IS being reported in NZ media as well:'
Small wonder sending them back is so,so popular in Australia.
What NZ can "legally" do is whatever Parliament says it can. If the govt wanted, refusing landing rights for any aircraft carrying a 501 deportee could be made legal in a matter of days.
Potential constitutional issue of refusing to grant NZ citizens entry to NZ would also be pretty easily dealt with, given that the citizens in question don't actually want to enter NZ.
If the govt wanted, refusing landing rights for any aircraft carrying a 501 deportee could be made legal in a matter of days.
I had typed out a comment in a very similar vein – and then deleted it as 'too radical'.
Still the idea appeals. If a 501 commits any crime, round them up into detention camps, put batches of them onto boats. Send them back across the Tasman with a note telling the Australian govt that it has way more experience with convict ships than we do. /sarc
FFS. If they wanted to do it they’d have done it.
Oz has the right to deport them, they’re not Oz citizens. If NZ says we’re not taking them, we’re passing legislation depriving them of citizenship (or some device that amounts to declaring them some lesser form of citizen) they’d be stateless & our govt would be given pariah status internationally because they’re NZ citizens.
Quite a few of the 501s are Māori. Can you imagine such legislation getting past the Maori Caucus? Or Te Pāti Māori? If so, you’re dreaming. No matter what they’ve done, to Māori, they’re whanau, they’ve got whakakpapa. They’d never turn them away.
Very nearly my point – which was, if they wanted to do it, the legality of doing it wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, Oz has the 'right' (in the strictly legal sense of the term) to deport people who grew up in Australia, have no memory of living in another country and no friends/family they know in the country they're being deported to. We could, if we chose, give ourselves the likewise-strictly-in-the-legal-sense-of-the-term 'right' to reject the dumping of these Australians (in all senses that matter) on our shores. The reasons we might choose or not choose to do that are entirely political, as you're aware.
They can make National Law, not International Law….so it would also mean removing ourselves as a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (at least).
It would also impact our reputation as an honest broker.
We have no obligation to act as an honest broker when dealing with the bargain-basement fascists and religious fundamentalists sending these Australian criminals to NZ. We should act with integrity because it's the right thing to do, but scum like Dutton can have no expectation that it's owed to them.
We have the obligation to honour the convention we signed….how the Australians, or Dutton act have no bearing on that.
I fully expect however you will get your wish to have the UN Charter either changed (or ignored) by all and sundry in the not too distant future.
The best answer to the 501 issue is to take away the opportunity for criminal relapse when they arrive in NZ by decriminalisation of all drugs and legalisation of Marijuana, MDMA and Cocaine. Focus on the supply of meth entirely, with no noise or new people coming into its orbit as they move to less harmful drugs purchased from the government.
I find the guy a smug p%&#k. The way he patronised and belittled Don Brash during one debate was pitiful. He knew Don would be an easy target given Don doesn't seem to have a nasty bone in his body. Still, I'm sure Dons hardened to such tactics.
I understand the superficial appeal of the idea – but NZ needs to fess up – these are the offspring of kiwi economic refugees fleeing the carnage of Rogergnomics.
They'd never have gone to Oz were the governments of their parents' day not thoroughly irresponsible. Yes, Australia should do better – but don't pretend Roger Douglas's bloody-handed apparatchiks are not to blame for this along with practically every other failure of governance that afflicts our long suffering nation.
This country might look quite different if the Australian bolt hole had not been there. Its existence has given a free pass to our morally regressive elites to f**k up royally without consequences.
The divergence between the two economies dates back to the era of Gough Whitlam who predates Rogernomics by about a decade. The flow of economic migrants to Australia was relatively balanced until around 1967 in the direct aftermath of CER.
So just blaming Rogernomics cannot be the whole story.
Of course not – single cause things aren't particularly common in the real world. But it was and remains a large contributor to the rapidly growing inequality and homelessness in New Zealand, and little or nothing is being done to address it as a root cause.
The wretched neoliberals that have larded dysfunction into every part of our state have more job security than the people they are ostensibly to serve. Small wonder that working families chose to emigrate, even when circumstances were not ideal.
I completely disagree, utterly and completely. These are only excuses to make murders, drugdealing and crimes forgivable. They are not, in any country. Hence Australia is deporting…yes you guessed it, criminals. It is the NZ government prerogative to set a standard and treat these returnees as such. Police is slowly being out numbered and even military would not boost the numbers enough. Don't get me wrong but this makes NZ completely unattravtive to investments and only smears its reputation. Be it in terms of law and order or corruption.
When a society is not being systemically looted by kleptocrats, it is more likely to function in such a way as to make working for a living a viable alternative to criminality. After Rogergnomics NZ stopped working for our lower quartile altogether. Now it barely works for the lower two quartiles. Property speculation is presently protected above housing security and community. In such circumstances, regard for the rule of law does poorer citizens no good at all.
"In such circumstances, regard for the rule of law does poorer citizens no good at all."
I understand the sentiment but I also doubt your conviction with that statement.
Stuart please read up on the fourth National Government. Many ills were made worse by the bail out of BNZ, and the following changes to state house rents, surtax on pensions, loosening the housing regs leading to leaky homes. It made the deregulation by Douglas much worse.
Interesting to hear Tukaki's comment was in the Herald – refuse to read it.
Yes, there is loads of reporting on the activities of the 501's how does that relate to the issue?
Australia couldn't legally turn refugees back either – so what? Of course, it is a deathcult imperative for 'civilized' countries like the UK now. Better still, we could follow their foriegn affairs tactic and render 501's stateless.
Tukaki a grandstander? Interesting put down which one wouldn't expect from you Gezza.
. "Better still, we could follow their foriegn affairs tactic and render 501's stateless."
That action that is decried condemned from here then?…..hell, lets be done with it and revert to survival of the fittest…no need for agreements, cooperation or trust.
Yes, there is loads of reporting on the activities of the 501’s how does that relate to the issue?
The issue IS the 501s, aom. The suggestion that NZ turn back aircraft bringing them is not in the same legal category as turning back & refusing entry to Tampa refugees. That may have breached international conventions that Australia (& NZ) have signed up to, but granting entry to New Zealand citizens is enshrined in NZ law.
Domestic law legally trumps international conventions – unless they are now enshrined in domestic law.
New Zealand citizens are entitled to enter Kiwiland at any time. Refusing entry to NZ citizens is illegal & Customs, Defence & Immigration personnel cannot act illegally. Our legislation would have to be amended to permit what Tukaki suggests, & no such amendment would ever pass in the House, imo.
Clearly, entry to NZ is dependent on MIQ availability & so "refusing entry to NZ citizens is [not] illegal".
Put the 501s at the bottom of the MIQ queue & tell Canberra they'll be accepted when circumstances allow.
Also, for whatever subset of 501s hold dual citizenship & weren't born in NZ, revoke their NZ citizenship & force Canberra to send them somewhere else.
The Aussie government won’t let NZ blackmail them. They don’t give a shit what the Kiwi govt thinks or says it will do. They’ll just put the 501s on the plane & send em anyway.
This RNZ explainer examines the issue & ramifications of depriving someone of NZ citizenship in some detail:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/what-you-need-to-know/448129/losing-citizenship-what-you-need-to-know
So
The idea seems to be that capitalism can evolve & progress on a sound basis provided one builds the system properly. Pretty much the opposite to wild west Americanism.
Capitalists not being naughty? Radical thinking on the rock. Wonder if it will catch on. Although it's British
Look at the equity….!what a magic show.
OCC Report Shows JPMorgan Chase Owns 62 Percent of all Stock Derivatives Held at 4,914 Banks in the U.S.
Some folks here have rejected our foreign policy of triangulating China & the USA. When push comes to shove, they seem to believe it's inevitable we'll get squeezed onto the west side of the divide. However Pakistan is also triangulating China & the USA. I suspect sceptics, if they take a closer look at the foreign policy of other affected nations such as Japan, Phillipines, Vietnam, will be able to discern a common pattern.
Here's the geopolitical strategy Imran inherited from the previous govt:
Seems clear both govt & military are dead keen to stay in the middle & play both sides against each other. If they continue to be able to do so, they'll be a role model for other triangulators to copy. Anyone who criticises our govt for an independent foreign policy will look like a fool…
'. Anyone who criticises our govt for an independent foreign policy will look like a fool…'
I don't think that will be much of a …deterent.
Interesting primer on Covid-19 tests.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/covid-19-test-what-to-take_l_6127927ae4b06e5d80ca7136
Paul Buchanan being nuanced again regarding our diplomatic relationship with China.
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2021/12/the-incremental-shift/
I’m especially intrigued by this: “I have a feeling that something pretty outrageous may have occurred in the bilateral relationship and NZ has now sought to tighten its ties to Western trade and security networks”
re Paul Buchanan's "incremental shift" expose. Phew two ladies in control of little ol NZ the PM and the Minister of Foreign Affairs gently tugging on the "balls" of China – who would have thunk it. One for the ladies.
NZ would have been given 'the hard word' by 5 eyes partners,you can be sure.
That was an interesting read. I’ve been puzzled by our apparent hardening diplomatic stance towards the PRC, especially given the economic risks with so many of our trade eggs in the Chinese basket. It will be intriguing to see what if anything occurs in the coming year that might prove Buchanan right.
I’ve been puzzled by our apparent hardening diplomatic stance towards the PRC
I've been reassured by it. It's ever so easy for me to default to the old `Labour are eternally clueless' judgment. When I see such evidence to the contrary, I can play with the notion that they aren't all morons after all.
Others see it as getting onside with the yanks. Understandable, but I advise paying attention to nuances. Better to see Five Eyes as a prudent defensive strategy than robotic conformism, for instance.
Thing is, Xi may be a benign dictator. The concentration camps may indeed just make inmates focus on Xi thought instead of islamic belief.
Brainwashing for the good of mental cleansing has been used on western consumers throughout our lives. Freedom of choice as a right of citizens is the difference between our situation & theirs.
Xi's credibility with westerners will be determined more by his Hong Kong policy than anything else currently. He has broken China's contract with the UK – the terms of the lease-ending agreement, which allowed HK to retain democratic rights & processes. Any contract-breaker proves they cannot be trusted. Prior Chinese regime leaders didn't make that stupid mistake!
It is entirely possible that our foreign minister has been advised accordingly. It wouldn't be the first time our govt officials had done their job properly, one suspects. Give them the benefit of the doubt on that basis. If you do, you need no longer be puzzled – you will see good reason for our "hardening diplomatic stance towards the PRC".
Xi seems intelligent, so you may wonder why he signalled this betrayal so blatantly. I reckon the signal was unintentional. My guess is that he does not realise he has discredited his geopolitical reputation yet. Belt & Road still seems a viable strategy – not just to him, but to most observers. Imran probably feels that islamic solidarity with the Uighyurs must be set aside in his mind to secure the economic benefits for Pakistan. Supping with the devil, he needs that long spoon.
'Any contract-breaker proves they cannot be trusted.'
You must have a high opinion of the U.S.A then!
Do you really think China is interested in invading western countries?
Let's assume you're being illogical to make a good point, eh? To make that point you would need to cite similar instances of geopolitical behaviour by the USA. Let's assume you didn't do that because you assume readers of this blog can read your mind, so no need.
A false assumption, I expect. However, if readers write in to testify that they can actually read your mind, I'll be impressed.
Do you really think China is interested in invading western countries?
So what gave you that loopy idea?? When has China ever done that before?
O.K-I do need to spell it out then.
Re your point about contract breakers and trust-a sample
All the international agreements the US has broken before the Iran deal — Quartz (qz.com)
' Better to see Five Eyes as a prudent defensive strategy than robotic conformism, for instance.'-is that sugar coating it!
'Xi's credibility with westerners will be determined more by his Hong Kong policy than anything else currently. '-your opinion.
Currently the Chinese property crashes and Xi's reaction are causing more concern imo.
' Imran probably feels that islamic solidarity with the Uighyurs must be set aside in his mind to secure the economic benefits for Pakistan. Supping with the devil, he needs that long spoon.'
Considering the U.S treatment of Native Americans and their actions in Sth and Central America just to name a couple ,how could their international reputation ever become as sullied as 'the Great Satan'.
It may well be that you are unaware of the crimes and misdemeanours of the 'yanks' since WW2 and couldn't care less,but the irony of trying to demonise China is just U.S foreign policy …as usual.
Hell, China has a 99 year lease on Darwin Port,they may as well just continue buying up Australia and NZ.
p.s the only mind reader here appears to be…you-'Imram probably feels'
'Xi's credibility will….'
You provide a link to a list that hides behind a paywall and expect me to take you seriously? All that achieves is an impression that there is likely to be substance to your claim. Which I knew about decades ago anyway.
I marched against the yanks in '71, the Vietnam War mobe, with all the leftists. I'm not expecting you to tell me anything new – just provide suitable evidence that the US has broken similar geopolitical contracts to destroy it's own credibility. Citation of actual incidences.
Just tried it again…NO paywall.
'All that achieves is an impression that there is likely to be substance to your claim. Which I knew about decades ago anyway.=?
– just provide suitable evidence that the US has broken similar geopolitical contracts to destroy it's own credibility. Citation of actual incidences.
Right…like they are just so hard to…find!-hopeless.
Okay so they don't want money to let you see it, they just want your private info. Not going there.
And you still can't specify instances to validate your claim. No worries – just thought you might not be as lazy as other folks here…
No private info required either…grasping at straws….you calling others ..lazy…pffft!
And lets not forget those 165 000 nuklear warheads Palistan has and India just inbetween not belonging to the muslim world, having China on the border of Tibet……
I think a few extra zeroes slipped in there
Still your point is a good one – the whole China/Russian/Tibet/India/Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan geopolitical nexus is complex and potentially disastrous beyond all belief. I've no idea how it's going to play out.